“We are each of an unsocial, taciturn disposition, unwilling to speak, unless we expect to say something that will amaze the whole room, and be handed down to posterity with all the eclat of a proverb.”
― Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
Yesterday, in responding to my post, RES Mark Alger (Update — yes, I got who said it wrong. But in retrospect, it was all RES’s fault for saying Pfui in such a Nero Wolfe like manner. Coff. Oh, okay, fine, my mind has been coming back — slowly and by degrees — from wherever it went while I was ill. But slowly is the operational point. So my excuse is that I was ill. Besides, I was led astray by evil companions, and further more I was never there. And I have a whitlow! Pfui.) made the point that there is such a thing as story comfort-food. He brought up Rex Stout, whose stories I tend to devour again and again, particularly when I’m feeling down, and which are, in fact, set pieces.
He could have brought up other examples, too. Like, say, romances. I have recently started going on binges of regency romances when I’m not feeling quite the thing. (No, not contemporary romances, because half of those break the story for the obligatory feminist rant, and then the book goes against the wall, and it’s just bad for my disposition in general.) Romances, in general, in fact, have weathered the trouble in the book business better than most. There are other books that fall in this category: Cozy mysteries, for instance (for those who are not versed with the terms, these are similar to the works of Agatha Christie) and classical space opera, or even quest fantasy.
If the main couple didn’t end up getting together at the end of a romance, if the detective didn’t solve the mystery, if the brave and plucky young man/woman didn’t win out at the end of the space opera, and if the quest fantasy didn’t fall out in the expected way, the reader would be very disappointed indeed.
Note that all these genres and subgenres are hated by most publishing houses, who have spent the last thirty years either trying to subvert them and giving them “astonishing” endings, (which lose readers) or suppress them by proclaiming ex-cathedra things like “cozy mysteries aren’t real mysteries” or “space opera isn’t really science fiction. Science fiction needs a big idea.” Romance in turn inspires them with a sort of incoherent rage, unless it’s the sort of “mainstreamish” literary “romance” in which everyone lives lives of astonishing irrelevance and is not allowed an happy-for-a-moment, much less a Happy-Ever-After.
I understand their point of view. Truly I do. I understand it beyond the easiest explanation which is “most traditional house editors are poopy-heads.” Most of them are NOT poopy-heads, and most of them are, in fact, trying to do the best they can.
However, I’ll also note, that though I can’t prove this, the feeling I have from countless writer-editor dinners and countless talks at cons, is that with one notable exception (yes, you know who.) most of them aren’t readers, either. Not in their spare time. They might have started out as readers, but – defeated by the pile of stuff that must be read for work – now relax in front of the TV or the game console. This has caused them to forget what the feel of being a reader is, and what it is like to read for entertainment. Hence curious ideas like “the reader doesn’t want more than one book by the same author in one year” and also, of course the “astonish me” mode.
The main driver of the “astonish me” mode, though, is that they read so much for work. IOW they read so much with an editorial eye out, and when they don’t really feel like reading for fun. And they get bored. They get astonishingly bored.
I remember this from when I read slush for friends, or even when I’ve edited invite-anthos. You have to be very careful not to read more than say three stories in a row, because after that, your readers-mind is numbed, and the editor comes out. And the editor gets bored. And the editor wants surprise. He (or in my case, she) wants something to break the mind-numbing boredom; something different, startling.
Of course, this is not ALL that is wrong – there is also the fact that most editors, at least since the sixties or so, have been liberal arts graduates. As a literature major (forgive me, it was another country, there were fewer options, and besides, the wench is dead) I know what that is like. You analyze literature, you think of it from angles that would never occur to a normal human being (“in this paragraph, Goethe refers to his feet carrying him into the forest. This denotes an almost psychotic loss of control” – or, the jaded writer says, maybe he just didn’t want to start another sentence with “he walked.”) This creates a feeling of “separation” from the common writer, a disdain for people who read merely for pleasure. Oikophobia sets in, which leads editors to regard falling numbers or complaints from the readers as proof that they’re in fact right and readers need to be “educated.” Most of all, due to the way evaluations and pronouncements are made in most literature courses, they are afraid of putting a foot wrong and rely on the quality-judgements of their equals, i.e., other literature graduates, because hey, would you trust the mere readers?
All of this has combined over the last thirty years or so to push the surprise ending and the surprise denouement into most genres. Unfortunately, this is not what the average reader wants. A surprise ending is fine – if the trail has been laid very well indeed, though, I’ll point out, this is more difficult to do than it seems – now and then, for a break of ennui. But someone like me who mostly reads for entertainment and to decompress, or simply to keep the voices in her head quiet while she does dishes or cooks (there are times I don’t need another story idea, thank you sooo much.) doesn’t often need surprise. And unless you have the genius, of say, Jill McGown, who can spin a mystery on its head three times in the last four pages, all using the same facts, most surprise endings are, in fact, disappointing.
I remember the first time in the seventies when I hit an ending to a colonization story and EVERYONE died. Two more of those and I stopped reading that subgenre of SF. There was no conscious decision. I just stopped. If the book wasn’t going to pay off, why invest hours reading it? I’d just re-read Heinlein instead. And the more er… “modern” mysteries ran me off most genres and into cozies only, until they shut off that spigot.
The truth is, demanding “a surprise in every book” is akin to demanding “an atomic explosion in every fireplace.” While atomic energy can be useful (and atomic warfare too, at least as a threat, and no, I’m so not debating this) having an atomic explosion in your fireplace is not only not useful, it’s not convenient, defeats the purpose and, oh, yeah, makes the entire area into a radioactive desert. Which large portions of genre literature have become, after thirty years of this treatment.
Most of the time, we really don’t want the hero in an erotic romance to turn into a spider on their wedding night and devour the bride. (Which is why most people wouldn’t read erotica written by me, more’s the pity.)
Most of the time we want the ending to be more or less what we expect. The occasional good surprise – oh, look, the little dog that was lost in the first chapter came home after the guy and gal got together. Cuuuuuute. – is okay, but it is not what we read for.
Those of us who are reading-addicts read for the journey; to spend time with characters we like, and to see each get what he/she deserves.
I regret to say this to my fellow literature-degree-holders, but most people want their entertainment to be uncomplicated. Yes, why, that DOES make you superior to them. Here’s your cookie, now go sit in the corner, and talk to other geniuses about how much better than average you are. As for me – pfui – I have a Nero Wolfe book to re-read.
